Lived experience is a highly dangerous thing to privilege, in that in very many cases it can lead to claims that are provably very wrong.
I don't know what you're driving at here, but if these claims are "provably very wrong" then I don't see the problem because the proof will speak for itself.
Let me change your list a bit to more accurately reflect what many people like me actually believe when confronted with arguments about racism:
An act is either racist or not by some objective criteria.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone of that race to be offended for an act to be racist.
The first one is fine I guess, but the second one is pretty much textbook question begging.
I am not responsible for the acts of my ancestors.
I am ESPECIALLY not responsible for the acts of other people's ancestors.
This both misconstrues the actual problem, and avoids the fact that questions of fault aside, you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.
No culture or its symbols are sacrosanct, especially our own.
There's a pretty wide gulf between "sacrosanct" and "deserving of minimal understanding and respect".
A race's current plight does not loosen the criteria for what constitutes racist acts against them.
This is just objectively wrong. The more disadvantaged and vulnerable a group is, the more susceptible they are to harm from actions that seem innocuous to people with privilege.
Given the above propositions, any appeal to offense taken by the Indian community in this case, or a lack of some unspecified amount of respect presented toward their cultural symbols is not a sufficient argument to claim racism.
Well, they're mostly terrible propositions, so it's no wonder you reach that conclusion.
Lived experience is a highly dangerous thing to privilege, in that in very many cases it can lead to claims that are provably very wrong.
I don't know what you're driving at here, but if these claims are "provably very wrong" then I don't see the problem because the proof will speak for itself.
Well, I guess to clarify / broaden, subjective experience has a set of known problems, and its no different in regards to racism, and thus we should limit our use of it and be wary when / if we do use it.
Lived experience is a highly dangerous thing to privilege, in that in very many cases it can lead to claims that are provably very wrong.
I don't know what you're driving at here, but if these claims are "provably very wrong" then I don't see the problem because the proof will speak for itself.
Well, I guess to clarify / broaden, subjective experience has a set of known problems, and its no different in regards to racism, and thus we should limit our use of it and be wary when / if we do use it.
Okay sure but trying to use "objective facts" to define away the experiences of disadvantaged groups also has a set of known problems, no?
I am interested in this idea that has been repeated throughout the thread, that the individuals participating in this discussion are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors. I have been skipping a few pages here and there where I did not have access to the site for a few hours, but I skimmed most things and didn't see anyone making such an accusation.
Is it not possible to feel the effects of institutional racism (as I mentioned here without accusing the individuals of having gleefully taken part in some form of slavedriving? Is it not possible to point out that not having had those issues only a generation back means that the problems and implications of racism are very real today?
I guess I just don't get what your ancestors have to do with it, yet I frequently hear that people are being held responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
Have a look at scrivenerjones's link above. At one point, the article describes a tribal elder speaking to one of the party-goers and, "lecturing her about his grandmother's forcible kidnapping and rape at white hands." That is an undoubtedly horrible act that any sane person should denounce, but what does it have to do with his relationship to her? It's really difficult to read that article without believing that a portion of the Native community's anger toward the party organizers is due to anti-white prejudice stemming from past injustices at white hands.
I have not heard an explicit argument made here that whites, or anyone for that matter, are responsible for the actions of their ancestors. It's pretty common across cultures though. I don't like race X because a member of race X did something terrible to one of my ancestors. How much racial, religious, and national conflict has that mindset caused over the years? Certainly enough that I feel compelled to point out that one is not responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
Perfectly Cromulent on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Irond, I had this short article from the East Bay Express knocking around in the back of my head but forgot to link it before for some reason. Some good stuff about cultural appropriation in general, and white people appropriating native culture in specific.
man it's self-righteous native americans lecturing about their sacred heritage versus stoner berkeley burning man raver hippies.
i really can't pick a side in this one unless "the whole building burnt down by accident" is one of the choices.
Irond, I had this short article from the East Bay Express knocking around in the back of my head but forgot to link it before for some reason. Some good stuff about cultural appropriation in general, and white people appropriating native culture in specific.
man it's self-righteous native americans lecturing about their sacred heritage versus stoner berkeley burning man raver hippies.
i really can't pick a side in this one unless "the whole building burnt down by accident" is one of the choices.
Another "everything is racist, so nothing is" post. No response needed.
Another "I don't agree/like your logical extension, therefore I will label it as asinine and passive aggressively ignore it by saying that I will ignore it despite the fact that I just commented on it."
If no response is needed, seriously, just don't respond.
prejudice, which includes racism and sexism and all that jazz, is a thought generation system that naturally occurs in the human brain. Humans make specious associations all the time because it's efficient and allows us to make snap decisions without having all the information, which is a luxury we have not evolutionarily adapted to yet.
The prefrontal cortex is supposed to handle and fine tune these thoughts, suppressing the ones that are not appropriate and do not stand in light of further evidence gained over time. You'll find that the people with prefrontal problems are generally either very rude, inflammatory, and ignorant of the effects of their actions, or they are totally unresponsive to their environment, the latter being a result of some total block of neural path generation to a damaged forebrain.
Therefore, it should be perfectly natural to have prejudiced and unjustified reflex thoughts as long as they are controlled. Whether or not you feel guilt about having these thoughts is your call. It could be argued that your ability to come up with serious judgments quickly is actually a type of intelligence and your ability to control and refine the process of thought another type of intelligence.
For example, people with a very vivid and perhaps perverse sexual imagination can be considered more intelligent than people with no sexual drive whatsoever. It is true that brains are plastic, and nuclei responsible for sexual drive can be repurposed, but the fact remains that all other things being equal, the sexual pervert has more brain activity than the sexless.
However, acting in a reprehensible way in response to this sexual drive shows a failure of the higher processing levels of the brain to control these urges in a socially responsible or at least carefully planned way. Modulation of signal empirically requires the most complexity of brain function and can be considered a better gauge of intelligence than activity.
However, this is only a general trend. It is true that people who are considered intelligent share certain characteristics: they are polite and considerate, they are well adjusted members of society, they are clean and neat, they have energy, they can both multitask and focus well, they involve themselves in society, and they handle stress well. There may be some people with a rated high intelligence that are opposed to this stereotype, and that is acceptable because of the high plasticity of the brain.
But it stands to reason for society at large that our brains are developed under roughly the same circumstances and therefore should exhibit similarity. Depression and grief manifest themselves in repetitive and predictable patterns across many intelligence levels and backgrounds, for instance, to the point where general questionnaires can be made that are astonishingly good at detecting these states in a variety of individuals.
So take a good look at yourself. Do you piss people off a lot? Do you have a plan for the future? Are you sleeping well? Eating well? Do you feel stressed out or miserable a lot of the time? Chances are you may just not have a perfect brain. Oh well. Luckily it is the most - well, one of the most reorganizable organ systems of the body, so if you know what you are doing, you can improve its function even you can't perfect it.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let me change your list a bit to more accurately reflect what many people like me actually believe when confronted with arguments about racism:
An act is either racist or not by some objective criteria.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone of that race to be offended for an act to be racist.
The first one is fine I guess, but the second one is pretty much textbook question begging.
Okay, let me go about point two in a different way. It is really just a restatement of the first point.
Offense is not necessary as one may commit racist acts without the knowledge of others or commit acts that are not apparently racist, but have racist causes or effects. IOW, one's knowledge of the act has no effect on whether or not it was racist.
I suspect your problem with the statement lies with the assertion that a person of a particular race being offended is not sufficient grounds to call something racist. That feeling is not some sort of a racism Geiger counter, obviously. One takes offense at perceived racism for a REASON. The point I was making is that you evaluate that reason they perceive racism and not the emotional reaction that it causes.
I am not responsible for the acts of my ancestors.
I am ESPECIALLY not responsible for the acts of other people's ancestors.
This both misconstrues the actual problem, and avoids the fact that questions of fault aside, you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.
So what? What effect should that have between me and a member of some disadvantaged race? Assuming that we ought to act differently toward one another, how do we gauge how privileged or disadvantaged the other is? I am merely saying that I do not deserve anger directed toward me for the actions of others, nor is guilt an appropriate emotion for me to feel.
No culture or its symbols are sacrosanct, especially our own.
There's a pretty wide gulf between "sacrosanct" and "deserving of minimal understanding and respect".
The difference in this case seems to be rather small from my view. Or, more accurately, the distance between the two is not at all clear given how vague "deserving of minimal understanding and respect" is.
A race's current plight does not loosen the criteria for what constitutes racist acts against them.
This is just objectively wrong. The more disadvantaged and vulnerable a group is, the more susceptible they are to harm from actions that seem innocuous to people with privilege.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between our two statements in my mind. I would argue that causing harm is undoubtedly a racist act and more vulnerable communities are more susceptible to harm. The idea is that you don't change the general principle based on the state of the community.
Given the above propositions, any appeal to offense taken by the Indian community in this case, or a lack of some unspecified amount of respect presented toward their cultural symbols is not a sufficient argument to claim racism.
Well, they're mostly terrible propositions, so it's no wonder you reach that conclusion.
Actually, I am inviting you to argue why you think the video is racist based on some sort of criteria for what racism is, not just saying, "it's racist 'cause they mad." It didn't seem racist to me, but I could be swayed by a good argument.
I am not responsible for the acts of my ancestors.
I am ESPECIALLY not responsible for the acts of other people's ancestors.
This both misconstrues the actual problem, and avoids the fact that questions of fault aside, you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.
So what? What effect should that have between me and a member of some disadvantaged race? Assuming that we ought to act differently toward one another, how do we gauge how privileged or disadvantaged the other is? I am merely saying that I do not deserve anger directed toward me for the actions of others, nor is guilt an appropriate emotion for me to feel.
Where does anyone here say that you deserve anger or ought to feel guilt? Again, it's like you're arguing against people who aren't even in this thread. What does any of that have to do with the acknowledgment of white privilege (which is the "you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.")
If some mythical minority somewhere hates white folks because of history, that's between them and whomever to sort out. Nobody here hates you, so can we get past arguing whether or not you deserve to be hated?
Again, it's like you're arguing against people who aren't even in this thread.
Exactly. My original list of propositions was based on how I approach the topic in general, not directed toward specific people in this thread.
What does any of that have to do with the acknowledgment of white privilege.
Absolutely nothing. I have no idea why you replied to those points as if I couldn't acknowledge white privilege. I have no trouble doing so.
BTW, sad that being treated mostly fairly and being allowed to rise to one's abilities is considered a privilege.
If some mythical minority somewhere hates white folks because of history, that's between them and whomever to sort out.
No doubt. There's a lot of guilt and anger that comes up when discussing race for some people. (No one here. :P) I only brought it up initially to acknowledge its existence in general and to state that I don't think it has a place in a constructive discussion on race.
Given the above propositions, any appeal to offense taken by the Indian community in this case, or a lack of some unspecified amount of respect presented toward their cultural symbols is not a sufficient argument to claim racism.
Well, they're mostly terrible propositions, so it's no wonder you reach that conclusion.
Actually, I am inviting you to argue why you think the video is racist based on some sort of criteria for what racism is, not just saying, "it's racist 'cause they mad." It didn't seem racist to me, but I could be swayed by a good argument.
Well, that's the thing. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why people might consider it racist. People think it's a disrespectful appropriation of culture yadda yadda. You might not think it's a good reason, but isn't that your opinion?
A group of people are offended by a video. You watch it, decide it's not offensive, and therefore these people must be getting upset over nothing. I'm sorry, but why are you a better judge? I feel like the same arguments are being made over and over again, so I'll just put it simply:
People say they're offended.
The tactful thing to do is try to understand why they'd be offended.
The disrespectful thing to do is to try to make them justify why they're offended with objective reasoning that will satisfy your expectations, otherwise they're simply being oversensitive and getting offended by nothing.
Well, that's the thing. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why people might consider it racist. People think it's a disrespectful appropriation of culture yadda yadda. You might not think it's a good reason, but isn't that your opinion?
A group of people are offended by a video. You watch it, decide it's not offensive, and therefore these people must be getting upset over nothing. I'm sorry, but why are you a better judge? I feel like the same arguments are being made over and over again, so I'll just put it simply:
People say they're offended.
The tactful thing to do is try to understand why they'd be offended.
The disrespectful thing to do is to try to make them justify why they're offended with objective reasoning that will satisfy your expectations, otherwise they're simply being oversensitive and getting offended by nothing.
The flip side to this is that those who dare to question whether or not the video is actually racist are labeled insensitive clods. There has to be a middle ground here, right? We can't simply freak out and bend to those who are offended by the slightest provocation. (NB: I am NOT saying that's what's happening here!) Nor can we permit everything and then get disgusted when someone gets pissed off. I need to get some sleep.
"Please do tell" was sincere. And I only typed one word in caps (the word "Thousands" or as it appears in the thread: "THOUSANDS")
But I'll check out the blogs people posted here, and I still need something better than feminism 101 because it's a pain to navigate.
Ech, there's really no way for "please do tell" to not sound condescending. Its kind of built in.
I agree with you about 101. For fem blogs, I used to get a lot of reading from "Alas, A Blog," although I don't visit often any more. The guest writers kind of irritate me and a lot of the site is fat-acceptance focused, which I'm... ambivalent about. They take the time to really dissect a lot of research though, which is awesome. The Well-Timed Period also does a lot of work looking at repro-tech research and repro law in the US, so that's worth keeping an eye on.
Feministing's pretty good for the slightly more militant side and its good for current affairs in the US, although I find it a bit too much of a downer to read regularly. Feministe is similarly useful for current affairs, but I find several of their authors so annoying that I can't read it any more. Also their commenters are, like, youtube level screaming retards thanks to an overly permissive comments policy.
Bitch, PhD is pretty interesting for the mum-focus, and the insight into working in academia and having an open marriage, but I kind of lost interest a while back when the primary author started to take more of a back seat.
Hugo Schwyzer's blog is probably my favoured dude-blog after Alas. I don't always agree with the guy due to his religiousnessness, but he argues in good faith.
Twisty Faster's I Blame the Patriarchy is possibly the scariest feminist writing on the net, but its mostly scary because she's right about a lot of stuff and isn't afraid to be really furious about it. If you can get past the rage, its very insightful. And she posts a lot about delicious food, in between rants. Ginmar on LJ is in a similar category ragewise, but I don't know how much she writes any more. She's a war vet who was treated pretty shabbily while in the service, so there's a fair bit of PTSD you need to make allowances for when reading her.
Pandagon's mostly my go-to at the moment. Amanda's very hard to disagree with, and Jesse's awesome too. Pam doesn't really appeal to me, but two out of three ain't bad. And the commenters are a good bunch.
This is what I call contextual outrage mining. You take one thing that you already don't like (Ke$ha), you slap it together with another you don't like(Redface), and then you backfill the rest with some bullshit that makes something more than just what it is (Ke$ha is one racist motherfucker).
Except no-one's really calling Ke$ha a racist motherfucker, just an insensitive jackass. This is what I call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about", wherein they massively overreact to anyone pointing out that an act of thoughtless cultural misappropriation should not be immune from criticism.
Thanatos, I'm in the same boat as you, except I work on the T'ohono O'odham reservation. They've got diabetes rates in the 90%, the poverty is literally seen to be believed, and their life expectancy is in the gutter.
Yet I keep seeing stories about the res, because its on the border and so much of the fence is literally just a shitty vehicle barrier and not much else. What's the number one bitch? That the federal government does not respect their soverignty.
Not the atrocious roads, not the alcohol abuse ($5 ticket and a ride home is the fine if you're a tribal member!), not the fact you've got a police force of maybe 40 officers to cover an area the size of Conneticut.
So yeah, misplaced priorities. And yeah, I thought Avatar was pretty astonishingly "Great White Hope" myself as well.
Well, that's the thing. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why people might consider it racist. People think it's a disrespectful appropriation of culture yadda yadda. You might not think it's a good reason, but isn't that your opinion?
A group of people are offended by a video. You watch it, decide it's not offensive, and therefore these people must be getting upset over nothing. I'm sorry, but why are you a better judge? I feel like the same arguments are being made over and over again, so I'll just put it simply:
People say they're offended.
The tactful thing to do is try to understand why they'd be offended.
The disrespectful thing to do is to try to make them justify why they're offended with objective reasoning that will satisfy your expectations, otherwise they're simply being oversensitive and getting offended by nothing.
The flip side to this is that those who dare to question whether or not the video is actually racist are labeled insensitive clods.
Because it's entirely the wrong reaction, one that tends to be in bad faith, and is the province of, you guessed it, insensitive clods. The right reaction isn't trying to figure out whether a specific situation meets some nebulous and probably controversial definition of racism. The right reaction is to examine the reasons why people were offended, not for the purpose of dismissing their concerns, but for the purpose of understanding them. That way you equip yourself to deal with future offences in a way that minimizes the wedge driven between you and the people who are offended.
This is what I call contextual outrage mining. You take one thing that you already don't like (Ke$ha), you slap it together with another you don't like(Redface), and then you backfill the rest with some bullshit that makes something more than just what it is (Ke$ha is one racist motherfucker).
Except no-one's really calling Ke$ha a racist motherfucker, just an insensitive jackass. This is what I call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about", wherein they massively overreact to anyone pointing out that an act of thoughtless cultural misappropriation should not be immune from criticism.
First world silly gooses complaining about a minor costuming choice in an inconsequential music video on the internet is exactly what I'd call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about." It just doesn't matter.
Well, that's the thing. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why people might consider it racist. People think it's a disrespectful appropriation of culture yadda yadda. You might not think it's a good reason, but isn't that your opinion?
A group of people are offended by a video. You watch it, decide it's not offensive, and therefore these people must be getting upset over nothing. I'm sorry, but why are you a better judge? I feel like the same arguments are being made over and over again, so I'll just put it simply:
People say they're offended.
The tactful thing to do is try to understand why they'd be offended.
The disrespectful thing to do is to try to make them justify why they're offended with objective reasoning that will satisfy your expectations, otherwise they're simply being oversensitive and getting offended by nothing.
The flip side to this is that those who dare to question whether or not the video is actually racist are labeled insensitive clods.
Because it's entirely the wrong reaction, one that tends to be in bad faith, and is the province of, you guessed it, insensitive clods. The right reaction isn't trying to figure out whether a specific situation meets some nebulous and probably controversial definition of racism. The right reaction is to examine the reasons why people were offended, not for the purpose of dismissing their concerns, but for the purpose of understanding them. That way you equip yourself to deal with future offences in a way that minimizes the wedge driven between you and the people who are offended.
Again, most of the time when people talk about a video being offensive, they aren't making strictly subjective claims. If you don't want to be called on your claims about the nature of reality or things, don't make claims about the nature of reality or things.
Declaring it a non-issue is just as stupid as making a big abloo about racism. Its a culturally insensitive piece of film, simple as that. Pointing it out shouldn't have generated 11 pages of what I will charitably refer to as 'stuff'.
This is what I call contextual outrage mining. You take one thing that you already don't like (Ke$ha), you slap it together with another you don't like(Redface), and then you backfill the rest with some bullshit that makes something more than just what it is (Ke$ha is one racist motherfucker).
Except no-one's really calling Ke$ha a racist motherfucker, just an insensitive jackass. This is what I call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about", wherein they massively overreact to anyone pointing out that an act of thoughtless cultural misappropriation should not be immune from criticism.
First world silly gooses complaining about a minor costuming choice in an inconsequential music video on the internet is exactly what I'd call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about." It just doesn't matter.
Out of curiosity, can you at least get that this costume choice was insensitive?
Why is this the one subject where I'm supposed to just be like 'welp okay' and just roll with someone else' opinion? I mean, sure, it's only right to try to understand why they feel that way, because just because it isn't obvious to me doesn't mean that racism isn't present.
But if I determine their shit is unfounded I don't see anything wrong with deciding to ignore them. I probably won't actively ARGUE with them the way I do with people who spout worse dumb shit (like actual racists), but I certainly don't have to acknowledge their point of view as 'correct, sorta', which seems to be what some people are arguing in here.
What equips you to do that? What skills and knowledge do you have that qualifies you over them to make any determinations regarding the foundations of "their shit"?
What equips you to do that? What skills and knowledge do you have that qualifies you over them to make any determinations regarding the foundations of "their shit"?
Your argument basically seems to be 'you disagree with them therefore you are incapable of determining whether or not you should agree with them'.
What equips you to do that? What skills and knowledge do you have that qualifies you over them to make any determinations regarding the foundations of "their shit"?
Your argument basically seems to be 'you disagree with them therefore you are incapable of determining whether or not you should agree with them'.
You, uh, don't see the flaw in this?
No, my argument is basically, "who do you think you are?"
The same could be said to you. Who do you think you are? As you so said yourself:
What equips you to do that? What skills and knowledge do you have that qualifies you over him to make any determinations regarding the foundations of what he thinks of "their shit"?
Really, it's opinion versus opinion.
If he doesn't agree with what someone is arguing he's allowed to write it off just as you're allowed to disagree with his disagreement.
I'm not purporting to evaluate and classify someone else's experience. So, no, the same cannot be said to me.
Some people think Obama is racist against white people. They have reasons they feel this way.
Doesn't mean I can't say their shit is retarded and be right. That's all I'm saying. Not every claim of x-ism is worth respecting. Am I saying that just because I don't recognize racism in a given situation off the bat I'm going to dismiss someone else' claim that it exists? Of course not.
I have had the "but why can't we have white pride?" discussion before, and I argue thusly: If you want to have German pride, French pride, British pride, Swiss pride, Irish pride, Swedish pride, etc. etc. have at it, because you all have distinct cultures and languages and practices and in fact isn't that what areas like Little Italy, or the heavily Polish areas of Chicago are all about?
Actually, no. Areas like Little Italy, Polish areas, Chinatowns, and the like may now be held-on-to due to cultural pride, but a number of them grew out of segregationist attitudes that ghettoized ethnic minorities. An Irish or an Italian immigrant was once, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, looked down upon and demonized as "coming to steal our jobs and miscegenate with our women". They didn't just stick together to help each other make a living here, they stuck together because they weren't welcomed, despite a governmental policy that encouraged mass immigration. However, it's probably makes for a better comparison to the view of Hispanic immigration than race relations between whites and blacks in this country.
Whereas "black" (as it was understood in the 70s before "African American", which is still a misnomer, caught on) really did refer generally to the descendents of African slaves, which were of West African stock. So fault the terminology and the times, for that one, not the intent.
The problem with "African American" is people misuse the shit out of it and they don't just refer to the decendants to African slaves and conflate it with African-decended people everywhere (which is funny, because if you follow studies on Mitochondrial Eve, that has a whole new meaning now). I had a conversation with someone and they mentioned an "African American" in our deparment. They were flummoxed when I said, "What? He's from London. His parents are from Tanzania." "Oh, that's why he speaks funny... I thought it was some kind of Ebonics." My head nearly exploded and when I recovered (picard facepalm.jpg) I said "Do not speak of this again."
No. What we are saying is that when a member of a privileged culture appropriates a token of a marginalized culture, particularly for a purpose that could be considered profane or obscene, they are doing something offensive.
So, Jennifer Lopez shaking her ass in a daishiki and blowing suggestively on a didgeridoo would be ok?
I'm not purporting to evaluate and classify someone else's experience. So, no, the same cannot be said to me.
Some people think Obama is racist against white people. They have reasons they feel this way.
Doesn't mean I can't say their shit is retarded and be right. That's all I'm saying. Not every claim of x-ism is worth respecting. Am I saying that just because I don't recognize racism in a given situation off the bat I'm going to dismiss someone else' claim that it exists? Of course not.
You're a white person! Of course you can talk about racism against white people.
If that's the sort of thing you had in mind, why didn't you say so in the first place?
No. What we are saying is that when a member of a privileged culture appropriates a token of a marginalized culture, particularly for a purpose that could be considered profane or obscene, they are doing something offensive.
So, Jennifer Lopez shaking her ass in a daishiki and blowing suggestively on a didgeridoo would be ok?
Let's agree that the headdress is a cultural symbol for all Native Americans.
It's a cultural symbol for a lot of groups. Indigenous Taiwanese. Various tribes in Africa. Basically... find an area where there was a primative culture at some point and access to birds, and they're putting feathers on their head, usually arranged in a fringe of some type. Same with war paint. Shit, my ancestors were running around with war paint for thousands of years, thinking it could give them magical powers, and they were white. And CRAZY.
I'm not saying that ke$ha's representation wasn't meant to be one of Native Americans, but you gotta watch the sweeping comments. A lot of this assumed appropriation of certain things is a pile of BS that can be hacked through with even a wikipedia understanding of history.
so do you have standing to take offense by proxy? i.e., is it your place to tell the world that a thing is racist and legitimately offensive to some disadvantaged group?
The white man's guilt is one of the biggest white man's priveledges of all. Not only do we get to be responsible for oppressing everyone, we get to feel sorry for them on their behalf, too.
No. What we are saying is that when a member of a privileged culture appropriates a token of a marginalized culture, particularly for a purpose that could be considered profane or obscene, they are doing something offensive.
So, Jennifer Lopez shaking her ass in a daishiki and blowing suggestively on a didgeridoo would be ok?
Probably not?
Puerto Ricans from the Bronx are part of the privliledged white man's culture? I thought she was "Jenny from the Block"? Or is the objection to rich people wearing poor people shit? Because, then we're leaving race warfare and going into class warfare. That's fine, but which war do you want to fight?
I have had the "but why can't we have white pride?" discussion before, and I argue thusly: If you want to have German pride, French pride, British pride, Swiss pride, Irish pride, Swedish pride, etc. etc. have at it, because you all have distinct cultures and languages and practices and in fact isn't that what areas like Little Italy, or the heavily Polish areas of Chicago are all about?
Actually, no. Areas like Little Italy, Polish areas, Chinatowns, and the like may now be held-on-to due to cultural pride, but a number of them grew out of segregationist attitudes that ghettoized ethnic minorities. An Irish or an Italian immigrant was once, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, looked down upon and demonized as "coming to steal our jobs and miscegenate with our women". They didn't just stick together to help each other make a living here, they stuck together because they weren't welcomed, despite a governmental policy that encouraged mass immigration. However, it's probably makes for a better comparison to the view of Hispanic immigration than race relations between whites and blacks in this country.
Touche; my underpants are showing on the subject of the ghettoisation of white ethnic groups in US history and I have not done as much reading as I could about it. I would still like to use the existence of such diverse ethnic groups (though currently accepted under the umbrella of "White") to illustrate why "White Pride" is more a misnomer and "white nationalism" is a meaningless term (which white "nation"? etc.). I have no problem with expressing pride with one's particular culture or mix of cultures.
Similarly I think that certain people who use "African American" today are silly geese for applying it where it is inappropriate (and I do not use it for myself), but what I was exposed to of the Black Power and Pan-African movements of the 1970s (and I could be wrong, but this is from my parents) were much more focused on West African culture, clothing, language etc. I think it's nearly equally ridiculous to claim descent from the ancient Egyptians as a descendent of slaves as it is to be a white power fanatic, IMHO.
What does any of that have to do with the acknowledgment of white privilege.
Absolutely nothing. I have no idea why you replied to those points as if I couldn't acknowledge white privilege. I have no trouble doing so.
I didn't say you had a problem acknowledging white privilege, and in fact, I felt the part of your post that I quoted showed that you did acknowledge it; I'm sorry if it seemed I wasn't taking you at your word. I took issue with your asking in the next breath why that should make other races dislike you. I don't think that should make other races dislike you.
I think we agree more than we assumed we did going into this, I just wasn't understanding why you would bring outside race issues into this thread. But then you said:
I only brought it up initially to acknowledge its existence in general and to state that I don't think it has a place in a constructive discussion on race.
Which is fair enough!
BTW, sad that being treated mostly fairly and being allowed to rise to one's abilities is considered a privilege.
Something I'm curious about is the differences between what let's one white person use a certain language that another can't.
Like Lisa Lampanelli. Is it because she's not the most attractive person in the world or because there's an unspoken understanding that she dishes out insults to everyone?
What I'm asking is whether Lampanelli has successfully crossed racial bounds in comedy because she doesn't seem like some vapid asshole out for a cheap laugh, but can make the jokes she makes, even the ones made in bad taste and are offensive, because she's not snooty, she dishes out the insults to everyone, and mixes in enough self depreciating humor to balance it all out?
I'm not endorsing her comedic style. I don't particularly care for her, but she's one of the few white comics that does what she does.
The last time I experienced a weird racism centered/racism against white people situation was this. Are year or so ago I got into a conversation with someone about how Oprah and Obama are Oreos. Meaning black on the outside and white in the middle.
I ask the guy to explain what he meant. He said that they are black but act like white people. So I ask him what white people act like and he gave me this really stupid impression of a prim and proper white guy who is preoccupied with manners and his job. I asked him if he thought I acted that way. He said he didn't. So I asked him at what point in time did we decide that black people had to act a certain way, and what that way was.
He stood there for a minute and I think he kinda got the point I was trying to make.
I don't think he was racist, just that he had a misunderstanding that was reinforced by some stupid opinions floating around out there.
No. What we are saying is that when a member of a privileged culture appropriates a token of a marginalized culture, particularly for a purpose that could be considered profane or obscene, they are doing something offensive.
So, Jennifer Lopez shaking her ass in a daishiki and blowing suggestively on a didgeridoo would be ok?
Probably not?
Puerto Ricans from the Bronx are part of the privliledged white man's culture? I thought she was "Jenny from the Block"? Or is the objection to rich people wearing poor people shit? Because, then we're leaving race warfare and going into class warfare. That's fine, but which war do you want to fight?
I know it's convenient to put everything into neat little boxes and pretend as though there isn't a complex interplay between all kinds of privilege, but intersectionality is a real thing.
Touche; my underpants are showing on the subject of the ghettoisation of white ethnic groups in US history and I have not done as much reading as I could about it. I would still like to use the existence of such diverse ethnic groups (though currently accepted under the umbrella of "White") to illustrate why "White Pride" is more a misnomer and "white nationalism" is a meaningless term (which white "nation"? etc.). I have no problem with expressing pride with one's particular culture or mix of cultures.
The "white nation" of Italians, Germans, Irishmen, WASPs, and mutts coalesced due to the perceived threats of outside influences including East Europeans and freed slaves. It's not a unique phenominon. There were plenty of Germanic tribes that stopped killing and eating each other long enough to deal with the Romans (though they were ultimately squashed except for a few exceptions). There are 2nd generation and above Hispanics and whites and blacks who are banded together in South Texas against new Mexican/South American immigration. Or conservative "tea baggers" of all sorts banding against health care. I imagine, to borrow a thought from Shadowrun, if an Elf or Dwarf appeared out of the ground or if aliens decended from the heavens, we'd probably stop giving a shit about skin color when the choice changes from "oh, look, he's got darker skin than me" to "holy shit, what is that THING in the corner".
GungHo on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
The last time I experienced a weird racism centered/racism against white people situation was this. Are year or so ago I got into a conversation with someone about how Oprah and Obama are Oreos. Meaning black on the outside and white in the middle.
I ask the guy to explain what he meant. He said that they are black but act like white people. So I ask him what white people act like and he gave me this really stupid impression of a prim and proper white guy who is preoccupied with manners and his job. I asked him if he thought I acted that way. He said he didn't. So I asked him at what point in time did we decide that black people had to act a certain way, and what that way was.
He stood there for a minute and I think he kinda got the point I was trying to make.
I don't think he was racist, just that he had a misunderstanding that was reinforced by some stupid opinions floating around out there.
was this guy a black guy? i suspect that he was. people don't generally have a strong sense of how their group is "supposed" to act.
it is kind of sad to me, though, that this guy felt like the two unacceptable ways for black people to act were: diligent in their job and polite.
The last time I experienced a weird racism centered/racism against white people situation was this. Are year or so ago I got into a conversation with someone about how Oprah and Obama are Oreos. Meaning black on the outside and white in the middle.
I ask the guy to explain what he meant. He said that they are black but act like white people. So I ask him what white people act like and he gave me this really stupid impression of a prim and proper white guy who is preoccupied with manners and his job. I asked him if he thought I acted that way. He said he didn't. So I asked him at what point in time did we decide that black people had to act a certain way, and what that way was.
He stood there for a minute and I think he kinda got the point I was trying to make.
I don't think he was racist, just that he had a misunderstanding that was reinforced by some stupid opinions floating around out there.
was this guy a black guy? i suspect that he was. people don't generally have a strong sense of how their group is "supposed" to act.
it is kind of sad to me, though, that this guy felt like the two unacceptable ways for black people to act were: diligent in their job and polite.
He was black.
Not long before that someone had made a similar remark about Obama. Kanye West? Maybe? I don't recall who it was specifically.
Posts
The first one is fine I guess, but the second one is pretty much textbook question begging.
This both misconstrues the actual problem, and avoids the fact that questions of fault aside, you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.
There's a pretty wide gulf between "sacrosanct" and "deserving of minimal understanding and respect".
This is just objectively wrong. The more disadvantaged and vulnerable a group is, the more susceptible they are to harm from actions that seem innocuous to people with privilege.
Well, they're mostly terrible propositions, so it's no wonder you reach that conclusion.
Well, I guess to clarify / broaden, subjective experience has a set of known problems, and its no different in regards to racism, and thus we should limit our use of it and be wary when / if we do use it.
Okay sure but trying to use "objective facts" to define away the experiences of disadvantaged groups also has a set of known problems, no?
Have a look at scrivenerjones's link above. At one point, the article describes a tribal elder speaking to one of the party-goers and, "lecturing her about his grandmother's forcible kidnapping and rape at white hands." That is an undoubtedly horrible act that any sane person should denounce, but what does it have to do with his relationship to her? It's really difficult to read that article without believing that a portion of the Native community's anger toward the party organizers is due to anti-white prejudice stemming from past injustices at white hands.
I have not heard an explicit argument made here that whites, or anyone for that matter, are responsible for the actions of their ancestors. It's pretty common across cultures though. I don't like race X because a member of race X did something terrible to one of my ancestors. How much racial, religious, and national conflict has that mindset caused over the years? Certainly enough that I feel compelled to point out that one is not responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
man it's self-righteous native americans lecturing about their sacred heritage versus stoner berkeley burning man raver hippies.
i really can't pick a side in this one unless "the whole building burnt down by accident" is one of the choices.
I was rooting for the meteor strike, myself.
If no response is needed, seriously, just don't respond.
The prefrontal cortex is supposed to handle and fine tune these thoughts, suppressing the ones that are not appropriate and do not stand in light of further evidence gained over time. You'll find that the people with prefrontal problems are generally either very rude, inflammatory, and ignorant of the effects of their actions, or they are totally unresponsive to their environment, the latter being a result of some total block of neural path generation to a damaged forebrain.
Therefore, it should be perfectly natural to have prejudiced and unjustified reflex thoughts as long as they are controlled. Whether or not you feel guilt about having these thoughts is your call. It could be argued that your ability to come up with serious judgments quickly is actually a type of intelligence and your ability to control and refine the process of thought another type of intelligence.
For example, people with a very vivid and perhaps perverse sexual imagination can be considered more intelligent than people with no sexual drive whatsoever. It is true that brains are plastic, and nuclei responsible for sexual drive can be repurposed, but the fact remains that all other things being equal, the sexual pervert has more brain activity than the sexless.
However, acting in a reprehensible way in response to this sexual drive shows a failure of the higher processing levels of the brain to control these urges in a socially responsible or at least carefully planned way. Modulation of signal empirically requires the most complexity of brain function and can be considered a better gauge of intelligence than activity.
However, this is only a general trend. It is true that people who are considered intelligent share certain characteristics: they are polite and considerate, they are well adjusted members of society, they are clean and neat, they have energy, they can both multitask and focus well, they involve themselves in society, and they handle stress well. There may be some people with a rated high intelligence that are opposed to this stereotype, and that is acceptable because of the high plasticity of the brain.
But it stands to reason for society at large that our brains are developed under roughly the same circumstances and therefore should exhibit similarity. Depression and grief manifest themselves in repetitive and predictable patterns across many intelligence levels and backgrounds, for instance, to the point where general questionnaires can be made that are astonishingly good at detecting these states in a variety of individuals.
So take a good look at yourself. Do you piss people off a lot? Do you have a plan for the future? Are you sleeping well? Eating well? Do you feel stressed out or miserable a lot of the time? Chances are you may just not have a perfect brain. Oh well. Luckily it is the most - well, one of the most reorganizable organ systems of the body, so if you know what you are doing, you can improve its function even you can't perfect it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Okay, let me go about point two in a different way. It is really just a restatement of the first point.
Offense is not necessary as one may commit racist acts without the knowledge of others or commit acts that are not apparently racist, but have racist causes or effects. IOW, one's knowledge of the act has no effect on whether or not it was racist.
I suspect your problem with the statement lies with the assertion that a person of a particular race being offended is not sufficient grounds to call something racist. That feeling is not some sort of a racism Geiger counter, obviously. One takes offense at perceived racism for a REASON. The point I was making is that you evaluate that reason they perceive racism and not the emotional reaction that it causes.
So what? What effect should that have between me and a member of some disadvantaged race? Assuming that we ought to act differently toward one another, how do we gauge how privileged or disadvantaged the other is? I am merely saying that I do not deserve anger directed toward me for the actions of others, nor is guilt an appropriate emotion for me to feel.
The difference in this case seems to be rather small from my view. Or, more accurately, the distance between the two is not at all clear given how vague "deserving of minimal understanding and respect" is.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between our two statements in my mind. I would argue that causing harm is undoubtedly a racist act and more vulnerable communities are more susceptible to harm. The idea is that you don't change the general principle based on the state of the community.
Actually, I am inviting you to argue why you think the video is racist based on some sort of criteria for what racism is, not just saying, "it's racist 'cause they mad." It didn't seem racist to me, but I could be swayed by a good argument.
Where does anyone here say that you deserve anger or ought to feel guilt? Again, it's like you're arguing against people who aren't even in this thread. What does any of that have to do with the acknowledgment of white privilege (which is the "you benefit in all kinds of ways from the misdeeds of people who came before you, and the harm caused by those same people continues to be felt by those living today.")
If some mythical minority somewhere hates white folks because of history, that's between them and whomever to sort out. Nobody here hates you, so can we get past arguing whether or not you deserve to be hated?
Exactly. My original list of propositions was based on how I approach the topic in general, not directed toward specific people in this thread.
Absolutely nothing. I have no idea why you replied to those points as if I couldn't acknowledge white privilege. I have no trouble doing so.
BTW, sad that being treated mostly fairly and being allowed to rise to one's abilities is considered a privilege.
No doubt. There's a lot of guilt and anger that comes up when discussing race for some people. (No one here. :P) I only brought it up initially to acknowledge its existence in general and to state that I don't think it has a place in a constructive discussion on race.
Well, that's the thing. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why people might consider it racist. People think it's a disrespectful appropriation of culture yadda yadda. You might not think it's a good reason, but isn't that your opinion?
A group of people are offended by a video. You watch it, decide it's not offensive, and therefore these people must be getting upset over nothing. I'm sorry, but why are you a better judge? I feel like the same arguments are being made over and over again, so I'll just put it simply:
People say they're offended.
The tactful thing to do is try to understand why they'd be offended.
The disrespectful thing to do is to try to make them justify why they're offended with objective reasoning that will satisfy your expectations, otherwise they're simply being oversensitive and getting offended by nothing.
The flip side to this is that those who dare to question whether or not the video is actually racist are labeled insensitive clods. There has to be a middle ground here, right? We can't simply freak out and bend to those who are offended by the slightest provocation. (NB: I am NOT saying that's what's happening here!) Nor can we permit everything and then get disgusted when someone gets pissed off. I need to get some sleep.
Ech, there's really no way for "please do tell" to not sound condescending. Its kind of built in.
I agree with you about 101. For fem blogs, I used to get a lot of reading from "Alas, A Blog," although I don't visit often any more. The guest writers kind of irritate me and a lot of the site is fat-acceptance focused, which I'm... ambivalent about. They take the time to really dissect a lot of research though, which is awesome. The Well-Timed Period also does a lot of work looking at repro-tech research and repro law in the US, so that's worth keeping an eye on.
Feministing's pretty good for the slightly more militant side and its good for current affairs in the US, although I find it a bit too much of a downer to read regularly. Feministe is similarly useful for current affairs, but I find several of their authors so annoying that I can't read it any more. Also their commenters are, like, youtube level screaming retards thanks to an overly permissive comments policy.
Bitch, PhD is pretty interesting for the mum-focus, and the insight into working in academia and having an open marriage, but I kind of lost interest a while back when the primary author started to take more of a back seat.
Hugo Schwyzer's blog is probably my favoured dude-blog after Alas. I don't always agree with the guy due to his religiousnessness, but he argues in good faith.
Twisty Faster's I Blame the Patriarchy is possibly the scariest feminist writing on the net, but its mostly scary because she's right about a lot of stuff and isn't afraid to be really furious about it. If you can get past the rage, its very insightful. And she posts a lot about delicious food, in between rants. Ginmar on LJ is in a similar category ragewise, but I don't know how much she writes any more. She's a war vet who was treated pretty shabbily while in the service, so there's a fair bit of PTSD you need to make allowances for when reading her.
Pandagon's mostly my go-to at the moment. Amanda's very hard to disagree with, and Jesse's awesome too. Pam doesn't really appeal to me, but two out of three ain't bad. And the commenters are a good bunch.
Except no-one's really calling Ke$ha a racist motherfucker, just an insensitive jackass. This is what I call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about", wherein they massively overreact to anyone pointing out that an act of thoughtless cultural misappropriation should not be immune from criticism.
Yet I keep seeing stories about the res, because its on the border and so much of the fence is literally just a shitty vehicle barrier and not much else. What's the number one bitch? That the federal government does not respect their soverignty.
Not the atrocious roads, not the alcohol abuse ($5 ticket and a ride home is the fine if you're a tribal member!), not the fact you've got a police force of maybe 40 officers to cover an area the size of Conneticut.
So yeah, misplaced priorities. And yeah, I thought Avatar was pretty astonishingly "Great White Hope" myself as well.
First world silly gooses complaining about a minor costuming choice in an inconsequential music video on the internet is exactly what I'd call "privileged geese looking for something to be outraged about." It just doesn't matter.
Again, most of the time when people talk about a video being offensive, they aren't making strictly subjective claims. If you don't want to be called on your claims about the nature of reality or things, don't make claims about the nature of reality or things.
Why is this the one subject where I'm supposed to just be like 'welp okay' and just roll with someone else' opinion? I mean, sure, it's only right to try to understand why they feel that way, because just because it isn't obvious to me doesn't mean that racism isn't present.
But if I determine their shit is unfounded I don't see anything wrong with deciding to ignore them. I probably won't actively ARGUE with them the way I do with people who spout worse dumb shit (like actual racists), but I certainly don't have to acknowledge their point of view as 'correct, sorta', which seems to be what some people are arguing in here.
CHILLLLLL KIDS. It's all gravy, babbbyyy.
Your argument basically seems to be 'you disagree with them therefore you are incapable of determining whether or not you should agree with them'.
You, uh, don't see the flaw in this?
No, my argument is basically, "who do you think you are?"
What equips you to do that? What skills and knowledge do you have that qualifies you over him to make any determinations regarding the foundations of what he thinks of "their shit"?
Really, it's opinion versus opinion.
If he doesn't agree with what someone is arguing he's allowed to write it off just as you're allowed to disagree with his disagreement.
Some people think Obama is racist against white people. They have reasons they feel this way.
Doesn't mean I can't say their shit is retarded and be right. That's all I'm saying. Not every claim of x-ism is worth respecting. Am I saying that just because I don't recognize racism in a given situation off the bat I'm going to dismiss someone else' claim that it exists? Of course not.
The problem with "African American" is people misuse the shit out of it and they don't just refer to the decendants to African slaves and conflate it with African-decended people everywhere (which is funny, because if you follow studies on Mitochondrial Eve, that has a whole new meaning now). I had a conversation with someone and they mentioned an "African American" in our deparment. They were flummoxed when I said, "What? He's from London. His parents are from Tanzania." "Oh, that's why he speaks funny... I thought it was some kind of Ebonics." My head nearly exploded and when I recovered (picard facepalm.jpg) I said "Do not speak of this again."
So, Jennifer Lopez shaking her ass in a daishiki and blowing suggestively on a didgeridoo would be ok?
If that's the sort of thing you had in mind, why didn't you say so in the first place?
Probably not?
I don't think the OP has much to worry about. Seems like a regular person who doesn't actively look for issues of race.
I'm not saying that ke$ha's representation wasn't meant to be one of Native Americans, but you gotta watch the sweeping comments. A lot of this assumed appropriation of certain things is a pile of BS that can be hacked through with even a wikipedia understanding of history.
The white man's guilt is one of the biggest white man's priveledges of all. Not only do we get to be responsible for oppressing everyone, we get to feel sorry for them on their behalf, too.
Puerto Ricans from the Bronx are part of the privliledged white man's culture? I thought she was "Jenny from the Block"? Or is the objection to rich people wearing poor people shit? Because, then we're leaving race warfare and going into class warfare. That's fine, but which war do you want to fight?
Touche; my underpants are showing on the subject of the ghettoisation of white ethnic groups in US history and I have not done as much reading as I could about it. I would still like to use the existence of such diverse ethnic groups (though currently accepted under the umbrella of "White") to illustrate why "White Pride" is more a misnomer and "white nationalism" is a meaningless term (which white "nation"? etc.). I have no problem with expressing pride with one's particular culture or mix of cultures.
Similarly I think that certain people who use "African American" today are silly geese for applying it where it is inappropriate (and I do not use it for myself), but what I was exposed to of the Black Power and Pan-African movements of the 1970s (and I could be wrong, but this is from my parents) were much more focused on West African culture, clothing, language etc. I think it's nearly equally ridiculous to claim descent from the ancient Egyptians as a descendent of slaves as it is to be a white power fanatic, IMHO.
I didn't say you had a problem acknowledging white privilege, and in fact, I felt the part of your post that I quoted showed that you did acknowledge it; I'm sorry if it seemed I wasn't taking you at your word. I took issue with your asking in the next breath why that should make other races dislike you. I don't think that should make other races dislike you.
I think we agree more than we assumed we did going into this, I just wasn't understanding why you would bring outside race issues into this thread. But then you said:
Which is fair enough!
Aye.
Like Lisa Lampanelli. Is it because she's not the most attractive person in the world or because there's an unspoken understanding that she dishes out insults to everyone?
What I'm asking is whether Lampanelli has successfully crossed racial bounds in comedy because she doesn't seem like some vapid asshole out for a cheap laugh, but can make the jokes she makes, even the ones made in bad taste and are offensive, because she's not snooty, she dishes out the insults to everyone, and mixes in enough self depreciating humor to balance it all out?
I'm not endorsing her comedic style. I don't particularly care for her, but she's one of the few white comics that does what she does.
The last time I experienced a weird racism centered/racism against white people situation was this. Are year or so ago I got into a conversation with someone about how Oprah and Obama are Oreos. Meaning black on the outside and white in the middle.
I ask the guy to explain what he meant. He said that they are black but act like white people. So I ask him what white people act like and he gave me this really stupid impression of a prim and proper white guy who is preoccupied with manners and his job. I asked him if he thought I acted that way. He said he didn't. So I asked him at what point in time did we decide that black people had to act a certain way, and what that way was.
He stood there for a minute and I think he kinda got the point I was trying to make.
I don't think he was racist, just that he had a misunderstanding that was reinforced by some stupid opinions floating around out there.
was this guy a black guy? i suspect that he was. people don't generally have a strong sense of how their group is "supposed" to act.
it is kind of sad to me, though, that this guy felt like the two unacceptable ways for black people to act were: diligent in their job and polite.
He was black.
Not long before that someone had made a similar remark about Obama. Kanye West? Maybe? I don't recall who it was specifically.
(I mean, "oreo"? Seriously?)